Hi Kwaka,
I took the time to rotate the elements to be aligned as you indicated and surprisingly (or maybe, not surprisingly) the left bleachers upper left corner would have been in the way of the trajectory…
1 Like
Not being a gun guy, I am asking all gun and military specialists in this forum: What is this and when do you use it? The reason I ask, is because when searching by image the below picture, Google suggested this image.
realDjStew’s video is one of the 5 videos on which allegedly military drones have been seen flying at about eye level where you put your horizontal red arrow in the last picture.
it might indeed well be that his videos have been cleaned up and enhanced with things that did not happen…
about:
yes, that is very clear…
btw: I am still awaiting the speed of sound you have been using in the sound analysis.
the information I provided to you a couple of hours ago can easily be extended with the times of flight and the delays of the sound arriving at a certain location, but I would need to get the same speed of sound as you are using to avoid nonsensical dismissing comments from your part
these are exactly the points I have raised and “the powers that be” ignore these completely…
exactly right, and even if the sea level would be slightly off, it will still be consistently “slightly off” on the various points in this small area, he…
whether the audio time is problematic is not yet so certain… I have been asking for the speed of sound that was used for the sound analysis and roger, who just confirmed that he has no clue whatsoever about guns, keeps ignoring this simple request…
I can easily add the times of flight at different velocities in my analysis tool and adding the times the sound travels is easy to do too, but as long as he does not provide authoritative information about this aspect, he hinders the any transparency…
I really wonder why a guy who confirms he is no gun guy whatsoever is in charge of a bullet trajectory analysis project…
when I pointed out that the relevant end points for these trajectory analyses are the proven bullet holes and the assumed muzzle positions, he bullshitted around claiming that the metal of the bleachers railing would have deflected the bullet trajectory significantly, but he does not provide any references whatsoever.
now I know why: he does not even know the bare basics…
I enumerated a couple of my credentials in one of my first posts, and I stay in my lane, which cannot be said about many…
anyway, thanks for having taken the time to check out the posts I made!
Well, if anyone is in the ceiling crawl space assassin camp, it seems the photoshopped is letting you know where that location is.
1 Like
The theory by Mike Adams of Natural News in how the three rounds where much further away than the other five is wrong. He suggested the rifle was in a side mounted position to lower the overall profile for the first three shots, this would cause the empty shell castings to be thrown up instead of too the right, and so go much further away.
It is clear that suspect started with the rifle in a standard mounted position, throwing all he empty castings to the right. If he did actually fire any shots?
hello roger,
you seem to assume that a bullet travels in a straight line trajectory, which is not the case.
the straight line of sight is the lower boundary of the bullet’s trajectory and the range at which the weapon has been zeroed determines approximately where the bullet drops below this line of sight…
1 Like
Your image of a man in a helmet shows:
- Kevlar helmet, bullet resistance up to small caliber rifle rounds.
- Electronic ear protection and talk/listen radio with mic.
- Metal helmet bracket mount for mounting various optics that can fold up and away. Generally, as in this case, a type of infra-red night vision type optic. This is in the stowed-up position, and would be folded down over one eye for night vision abilities. There are other versions with two optics for both eyes.
- Some various side brackets on helmet are common for mounting things like lights, cameras, IR strobes (so you can identify friendlies at night in IR optics so you don’t shoot them, drop bombs on them, can ID them from afar, etc.), etc.
These devices are all now very common in US military and law enforcement tactical units.
Images of them deployed in use demonstrated:
Thank you for reminding people, as I have tried to do.
THIS is something folks are missing with trajectories when drawing a laser-like straight line from point of shooter to point of impact. Bullets do not work that way.
With a 5.56mm (and most others) there will be a variance between the optic and the barrel, generally a couple inches, that must be accounted for when “zeroing” a rifle at different ranges. There will also be a slight bullet “arc” or a slight rise and then a dip which continues until it strikes something. This is “elevation.” There can and generally is ALSO be a lateral “windage” or side-to-side movement based on wind. For extremely long shots, professionals even factor the rotation of the earth in their calculations! The key takeaway is bullets are not lasers. The drift up and down, side to side as well.
For those that don’t know this, all other variables equal, an unimpeded bullet fired exactly parallel to the earth, will fall and land on the ground at the exact rate as a dropped bullet at the same time from the same height. IOW they will land on the ground at the same time. So remember that when trying to determine trajectory. Gravity is always at play.
In this case, we don’t know at what bullet type and weight nor do we know range the rifle(s) were zeroed, or where their points of aim were. The bullet that struck Trump, might have been aimed for his chest or throat and been a bad zero, or a bad aim, etc. We just don’t know. Further, there was a eastern wind of 5 to 7 mph.
In input some best guesses and other data and came up with, if using 55 grain .223 and a zero of 100 yards, with known elevation (415 meters), wind speed 7mph, temps, and other data or best guesses as estimates:
At 150 yards, the bullet drops 1 inch and drifts 2.2 inches.
At 300 yards, the bullet drops 13.6 inches and drifts 3.1 inches. In this case, from west to east.
So, Crooks would need to adjust his zero or accommodate for range: 25 yards, 100 yards, 150 yards (hence the range finder may have aided him in adjusting zero). Same with the potential shooter on the N. rooftop. There are adjustments on the rifle or optic to allow a shooter to adjust to known distances. But we know and can calculate within reason how much drift and drop those bullets experienced.
1 Like
yes, what i find very striking is that several of the most active critics and deniers of what we say on this forum have no shooting experience at all (for example roger and brian confirm this in their own posts).
how is it possible that the project leader of a project for trajectory and ballistics analysis does not even have the most basic knowledge of ballistics, rejects very viable options based on prejudice, bias and cognitive dissonance and makes such bold statements without any references or relevant qualifications?
the answer is, from my point of view, very simple: the attack on Trump has been carefully orchestrated and made possible by undermining the skills and expertise of the people he should be able to trust blindly.
well, here we see the same thing: Chris is a trustworthy person and has a very solid core team supporting him, but the second layer of his people is infiltrated by purely incompetent bullies with no good intentions!
and when i point this out, i am the one who is labeled arrogant…
so be it 
You know, geography is destiny. I suggest to tone down the discurs a bit. Not everyone has the same interests or knowledge base. roger-knight is certainly not a project leader here, but has constructed his own model. There were others, like schroederized and, I believe, sloggo2u who build their own models, like you. When an adminstrator crudely closed the geometry thread, opened another one and soon closed that new thread again, I heard nothing more form schroederized at least. sloggo2u had a very interesting LIDAR dataset and then said, that the google earth elevation data are partly wrong (or very imprecise), for example at the south-eastern edge of building 6. Whoever had invested much time, effort and due diligance does certainly not want hear he wasn’t an expert or even be labeled as an “denier”, with well known connotations. That said, at least I do not know which one of the two contradicting hypotheses is correct. And there are more than just these two.
3 Likes
hello pk2019,
as you must have noticed by now, I am not the one who charges or bullies.
the sword cuts on both sides.
my model does not use the ground levels as reference as these vary so much, but the top of the various buildings, as these are mostly (or at least more) even and “more” horizontal than the ground levels.
the very uneven ground surface is what does roger-knight’s system/model in, and he does not want to hear that…
these are just observations.
I go for transparency and openness, which is why I have provided my kml snapshot to everybody who wants to have a look at.
if they do, that is fine, if they do not, that is a pity and lost opportunity for them…
as far as I am concerned, I am not married to any of these systems and will update whatever is necessary as soon as there is corroborated evidence to support the change.
so far, this is what makes most sense based on the many things I have analyzed so far…
I use google earth pro and the coordinates/height/elevation of the walls and roof of agr building 6 have changed indeed, but that is not problematic for my model
thanks for your feedback!
I have seen 1150 fps number thrown around as a good estimate. Wikipedia says 1125 fps or 343 m/s.
This post has one of the more detailed SoS calculations I’ve seen here.
2 Likes
thanks!
I will use 349.58209950074297 m/s (1146.9228986244848 fps).
“they” reject the hypothesis of the real shooter on the higher roof because “the sound analysis does not match the distances”, but they do not use the value of the speed of sound that matches the atmospheric conditions (mainly temperature) for that specific day.
so in my model I will use the value that should be used (this value is close to the values you just gave)…
we will see if that makes a difference, huh…
another example of bias and prejudice as to why they reject that shooter location without careful evaluation…
thanks!
I will check these values using parameters for sniper rifle bullets and sniper muzzle velocities…
it is very unlikely that they have been using this type of ammunition and rifles in their analysis…
Hi Howdy,
I could understand the reservation of roger-knight and others since previously the information on your web site was so sparse that at least I could not really retrace your method (apart from the “similar angle” argument). But now you say:
This wasn’t clear to me at all, and possibly also not to your at times square-jawed contrahents. It’s a really nice idea. But then how to marry (or at least befriend) your model with that one of roger-knight and others?
I sometimes wonder that to my knowledge no american geodesist packed his instruments and simply determined rise and talf in situ.
I mentioned earlier that the model of roger is crippled beyond repair… I based this statement based on
- his back tracing approach that he illustrated 2-3 times based on the input that I gave him and
- the fact that he always tries to back trace things to the location of the roof where the man died and
- the fact that he constantly focuses on the height of different objects while ignoring the different ground levels and
- the fact that he was not even aware of the simple fact that the JCB hydraulic lift stood in a depression, and thus lower than the right bleacher and
- the fact that he was not even aware that the ground floor of Trump’s podium was several feet higher than the ground floor of the corner of the bleacher
every time he input the very accurate data that I provided to him, he came back with a horizontal line and the claim that the back tracing had led to a shooter position that had to shoot through (!) several buildings…
his system is really completely inappropriate for this analysis…
the fast buriers of information sent their geodesists to the site the day after the event, he…
probably to document which evidence scenes have been wiped “clean”…
Hi howdoiknowthisinfo and BigTim,
As I stated in my previous Post, I am not a riffle guy and I have already reached out to the community for help on this topic:
Maybe you guys can help? The length of the shot in 3D (from the wall of building 6 to the bleachers corner) is 503feet. How many inches does the bullet sink due to gravity and how many inches does the bullet move to the side due to the wind?
If you could give me these two numbers, I will integrate it into the “back trace” simulation.
Thanks in advance.